energizing an ecosystem: brewing 1 million cups

7/29/2019 Energizing an Ecosystem: Brewing 1 Million Cups

1/20

March 2013

Jared KonczalSenior Analyst

Kauffman Foundation

Yasuyuki MotoyamaSenior Scholar

Kauffman Foundation

Energizing anEcosystem:

Brewing

1 Million Cups

Fosteringeconomic independenceby advancing

education and entrepreneurship


2/20


3/20

March 2013

Jared KonczalSenior Analyst

Kauffman Foundation

Yasuyuki MotoyamaSenior Scholar

Kauffman Foundation

The authors would like to thank Nate Olson, Cameron Cushman, Thom Ruhe, Dane Stangler,

and Jordan Bell-Masterson at the Ewing Marion Kauman Foundation, and Nick Seguin at Dynamit.

2013 by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. All rights reserved.

Energizing anEcosystem:

Brewing1 Million Cups


4/20

Energizing an Ecosystem:Brewing 1 Million Cups2

Executive Summary

In April 2012, Kauman Labs launched the 1 Million Cups (1MC) program in Kansas City,

Missouri, a weekly event or entrepreneurs that showcases presentations rom early-stage

startups. From initial attendance o about a dozen people in April 2012, the event had, eight

months later, reached more than 200 attendees per week. It also has expanded to other cities,

including St. Louis, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Houston, and Reno, with urther expansions

currently in development. As a way to track the evolution o this emerging program and the

entrepreneurial community it represents, we surveyed attendees in November 2012. Our fndingsprovide insight into how an entrepreneurial network grows and develops, and underscore the need

or continued data collection.

Highlights rom this initial survey include:

Participantsattendfrequently66percentattend

twoormoretimeseachmonth,and42percentattend

almost every week.

43percentof1MCparticipantsarenotoriginallyfrom

theKansasCitymetropolitanarea,butcametothisarea

to attend college and stayed, or came after college and

stayed.

96percentofparticipantswereCaucasiansand

84percentweremale.However,intermsofageand

identity(self-reportedbackgroundsuchasdesigner/

creativeormanagement),participantsaremuchmore

diverse.

1MChascapturedentrepreneursinarelativelyearly

stage, but the majority of founders and co-founders

reportworkingfull-timeintheirstartup(74percent)and having taken in at least some form of revenue

(64percent).

Participantsattendandcontinuetocomebacktothe

programmanymonthsaftertheyrstattended,which

is a strong signal about the value of the event to

attendees.

Thecommunicationmodeforrecruitingparticipantsisworth

discussing.Despitetheageofdigitalandsocialmedia,wordof

mouth continues to be the dominant method for bringing new

attendeesintothe1MCnetwork.Furthermore,itisnotjustone

singlepersonorafewkeypeoplepassingthewordalongtoother

people,butawidevarietyofindividualswhoreferred1MCto

peoplewhothendecidedtoattend.Theselessonsfrom1MCareimportantforothercities

lookingforamodeltoconnectentrepreneurswiththeirregions

entrepreneurialnetwork.Theorganizationalframeworkof1MCis

easy to understand, and there is a low cost of holding the weekly

event.Iffacilityspaceisdonated,theprimaryremainingcostsare

for coffee and the in-kind time contribution of the organizer(s).

Forcitiesandentrepreneurslookingforalow-cost,high-value

program,wefeelthe1MCstoryandthendingspresentedinthis

paperarehighlyrelevant.

Importantly,wepresentthesendingsinthespiritof1MCitself:asexploratory,notdenitive.Thisistherstofmanysurveys

thatwillbeconducted,andwefullyexpectthatthendingswill

evolvealongwiththeprogramitself.


5/203

IntroductionCoffeeisjustlyfamousasasociallubricantandintellectualfuel.

In Where Good Ideas Come From, Steven Johnson credits coffee and

coffeehouses for incubating the ideas behind the Enlightenment.Today,coffeeanditsassociatedcafesandshopsagainserveas

theemblemsofamovementthistime,theentrepreneursand

innovatorswhoareleadingastartupmovementintheUnitedStates

and around the world. Anecdotally, coffeehouses today incubate

countlessnumbersofnewcompanies.

Drawingontherelationshipbetweencoffeeand

entrepreneurship,inApril2012KauffmanLabslaunched1Million

Cups(1MC),ontheinformalpremisethatiflocalentrepreneurs

(inthiscase,inKansasCity)drankonemillioncupsofcoffee

together, the constant mixing and interchange would create a

strongentrepreneuriallearningnetwork.Sofar,theoriginalinformalpremisehasbeenborneout:frominitialattendanceofaboutadozen

people,toaverageattendanceofthirtytosixtyintheearlymonths,

1MChadreachedweeklyattendanceof200peoplebyJanuary2013

(seeFigure1below).1MCisexpandingtoothercities,including

St.Louis,DesMoines,CedarRapids,Houston,andReno.DesMoines,

coincidentally,istakingthe1MCthemeclosetoheartitstartedin

acoffeeshop.

Eachweekat1MC,twostartupsgivesix-minuteeducational

presentationsabouttheirenterprisetoanopen-invitation

audienceusuallycomprisingentrepreneurs,peopleaspiringtobeentrepreneurs,mentors,advisors,andothersupporters.Itsimportant

tonotethatthisisnotapitchingeventforinvestors.Whilethere

maybeprospectiveinvestorsintheroom,thisisnottheevents

purpose.Twentyminutesofquestionsanddiscussionfolloweach

presentation.

Typically,entrepreneurssharethestoryoftheircompany,where

theyhopetogo,andchallengestheyface.Thisexerciseallows

entrepreneurstoarticulatetoagroupoftheirpeerstheprocess

thatenabledthemtoidentifyandevaluateopportunitiesandtheir

abilitytobootstrap,marshalresources,andconvinceotherstobuy

in.Thepresentationfunctionsasatwo-waylearningexperience.The

presentingentrepreneursreceivefeedbackontheirideasandinsights

on things they had not thought about before. The audience gets to

seerst-handhowentrepreneursactandthinkwhentheyaretalking

abouttheirbusiness:theyseerolemodelsforhowtopresent;they

learnaboutthetypesofquestionstoaskthemselves;theylearnhow

peoplerespondtothesequestions;theylearnaboutnewideasthey

were not aware of before.

Inmostcases,thestartupspresentingarelessthanafewyears

oldorjustintheprocessofgettingstarted;atthetimeofthisinitial

survey,manyhadnotformallyincorporated(weplantoresearch

formalincorporationinsubsequentwork).Insomecases,asolo

entrepreneurpresents,whileinothers,multiplemembersofthe

foundingteampresent.Thetypeofcompanyvaries,andtheprogramattractsavariedmixofsectorsandindustries.Thepreponderance,itis

fairtosay,wouldbeInternetandmobilestartups.

Thethreeprimemoversbehind1MCNateOlson,Cameron

Cushman,andNickSeguinintendedtocreateanexperiential

environmentbyconnectingindividualsintheKansasCityareausing

presentationsbystartupsasacatalystactivity.Theprogramhas

threemainobjectives:toengagethecommunity(rstentrepreneurs

directly, then the community at large), to educate the community

aboutstartupsintheirarea(oftendiscussinghowthecommunity

cansupportthesecompanies),andtoacceleratethegrowthofthese

startupsbyfacilitatingcollaboration.

Asidefromtheorganizerstimecostsandin-kindcostsofusing

Kauffman Foundation facilities and technology, there are minimal

additionalcostsassociatedwithrunningtheevent.Therapidly

growing attendance, shown below, demonstrates the value that

entrepreneursandothersperceiveintheprogram.

InNovember2012,attendeeswereinvitedtorespondtoan

onlinesurveythataskedforsomebasicdemographicinformation,

Fig. 1. 1MC Attendance Over Time

Source:1MCOrganizers

Energizing an Ecosystem:Brewing 1 Million Cups

WeekofThanksgiving

250200

150

100

50

0April2012

SeptAugJulyJuneMay Jan2013

DecNovOct


6/204

information about whether they were a founder or co-founder

ofastartup,andtheirattendanceat1MC.Inthispaper,we

discusstherationaleforthisresearchproject,thenprovidean

overviewofthesurveydesignandanalysisofresults.Weconclude

withimplicationsfor1MCandthebuildingofentrepreneurial

communities.

RationaleThereisapointintheentrepreneurialjourneypastwhich

conventionalacademicresearchusuallydoesntventure:

theearlieststagesofideaexploration,longbeforecompany

formation,whatresearcherscallnascententrepreneurship.

Thisiswhatweseeastheblackboxofentrepreneurship;itisa

primordialsoup,messyandunyieldingtomostresearchmethods,

yetessentialtoentrepreneurshipandeconomicgrowth.

Wedesignedasurveythataimedtocaptureinformation

abouttheearlieststagesofanentrepreneurshipcommunity

thatisjustemerging,butintendtoapproachthissurveyinthe

spiritof1MCasexploratoryandconstantlyevolving.The

programalreadyhaschangedsinceweadministeredtheinitial

survey,butitisimportanttopresentthesendingshereasa

rststep.Accordingly,ourgoalwastoacquireanexploratory

understanding and begin to draw lessons for creating an

entrepreneurialcommunity.Inparticular,wefocusedontwo

areasofentrepreneurshipthathavenotreceivedmuchattention

fromresearchers:1)howanetworkofentrepreneursemerges,

and2)themobilityofearly-stageentrepreneurs.Weexplaineach

objective in detail.

Generallyspeaking,therearetwoapproachesofstudiesin

entrepreneurship:focusingonentrepreneursasindividuals,or

focusingoncommunitiesorexternalforcesthatinuencethe

entrepreneurshipphenomenon(Shane2003).However,despite

itsimportance,scholarshavepaidinsufcientattentiontothe

studyofentrepreneurshiponcommunities(Martinez,Yangand

Aldrich2011;Lyonsetal.2012).Morespecically,therehasbeen

virtuallynodevelopmentofactionableknowledgeabouthowtoconnectentrepreneurs.ItiswidelyknownthatSiliconValley

enjoysanextremelydensenetworkofentrepreneurs,investors,

andotherentrepreneurshipsupporters(Leeetal.2000;Kenney

2000),andtheycomewithspecichistoricalroots,suchasthe

roleofFrederickTermanatStanfordUniversitytowardHewlett

andPackard(Lecuyer2006)andthespin-offrmscreatedby

early semiconductor manufacturers, such as Fairchild (Saxenian

1994;Klepper2010).Nonetheless,thesehistoricalanalyses

providefewimplicationsforactionableknowledgeabouthowto

startanentrepreneurialcommunityfromscratch.Inotherwords,

howspecialthingshappenedwithafewdistinguishedindividuals

withinspecicinstitutionalsettings,suchasatuniversitiesor

particularrms,doesnotnecessarilyprovideimplicationsfor

howtoreplicatesuchnetworksinotherplaces.Otherresearch

hasfocusedontheimportanceofnetworkstoentrepreneurs

(NandaandSrensen2010;SorensonandStuart2004;Stuart

andSorenson2007;StuartandDing2007).However,theselines

ofresearchareprimarilyfocusedonthevalueofnetworksto

entrepreneursforsecuringresources(e.g.,forndingsuppliers,

customers, mentors, and investors) or for deciding whether

tobecomeanentrepreneurornot.Theydonotfocusonthe

emergenceoftheentrepreneurialnetworkitself.

TheclosesttoansweringthisquestionwasSaxenianand

hercolleagues(1999,2002).However,theirscopewaslimitedto

analyzingwhyChineseandIndiansformedethnicprofessionalassociations,andhowsuchassociationsdevelopedovertime

within the social and economic limitations faced by Asian

technicalprofessionalsintheSiliconValleysemiconductorsector.

Theirstudiesrevealedacoupleofimportantimplications:rst,a

fewkeyindividualsformedthoseethnicprofessionalassociations,

and, second, it took almost two decades for those associations

tofullyfunctionasavehicleforentrepreneurship.Nonetheless,

itisadifferentquestiontoaskhowtocreateanetworkfrom

scratchinplaceswheretherehavebeenfewactivenetworks

amongentrepreneurs.Toourknowledge,thiswillbetherst

exploratorystudytoexaminehowanetworkofentrepreneurshasbeenformed,developed,andspread.Here,wewillpay

specicattentiontowhereentrepreneurshaveheardaboutthe

entrepreneurialnetworkbecausethiscommunicationmodeis

crucialforunderstandinghowtheinformationowsamong

entrepreneurs,howandwhytheyjointhenetwork,andhowthe

network structure is organized.

Conventionalwisdomsaysthat,inthecurrentdigital

age,particularlywithatech-savvypopulation,entrepreneurs

networkswillemergethroughtheInternetandsocialmedia

Facebook,Twitter,andvariouswebsites.Indeed,1MChasawebsite, its key organizers actively tweet, and digital media for

entrepreneurship,suchasSilicon Prairie News, have referenced

1MCperiodically.However,wehaveacounterhypothesison

thispoint:Entrepreneursrelyprimarilyonpeopleforimportant

information. The digital age also is an age of information

abundance. There are vast volumes of books, websites, and blogs

abouthowtostartandsuccessfullygrowcompanies.However,

inreality,entrepreneursdonothavetimetosiftthroughall

this information. It is more crucial for them to get to trustable



7/20


8/206

previousresearchofferslittle,andweachievedmorethana

50percentresponserate. 1Morespecically,inthesurvey,we

askparticipantswheretheyareoriginallyfrom(KansasCityor

elsewhere) and where they have attended college, which gives

somebasicanalysisofmigrationpatternsofentrepreneursatkey

pointsinlife.

Theimplicationsdrawnfromthesetworesearchquestions

areimportantinidentifyingthebestcommunicationmethod

torecruitentrepreneursforeventslike1MCandthetypesof

peopleprogramorganizersshouldtarget.Asmentioned,word

about1MChasspreadwidely,andtheKauffmanFoundation

periodicallyreceivesinquiriesabouthowtoreplicate1MC.Infact,

othercitiesalreadyhavelaunched1MC:DesMoines,Iowa,in

November2012,HoustoninJanuary2013,St.LouisinFebruary

2013,andRenoandCedarRapidsinMarch2013.Inthissense,

it is a mandate of the Kauffman Foundation to draw as many

lessonsaspossiblefromourown1MCinKansasCity.

Survey AnalysisWiththeexploratorynatureofthisproject,ourstrategy

wastodesignaquickandeasysurveytobeoflittleburden

toparticipants.Weaimedtocaptureahighresponserateby

administeringthesurveyonsiteat1MC.Wedistributedthe

surveyattwoseparate1MCeventsinthebeginningandend

ofNovember2012.2Seventy-ninevalidcompletedresponses

ultimatelywererecorded.Weestimatearesponserateofabove

50percent.3Wepresenttablesandchartsderivedfromthesurvey

questionsinthissection.

Notallattendeesat1MCareafounderorco-founderof

acompanyfty-threerespondents(67percent)identied

themselvesassuch.Thirty-threeofthosefty-three(62percent)

identiedthemselvesashavingpriorfoundingexperienceas

well.Therewasasetofquestionsthatonlythesefty-three

respondentsreceived,andsomeofouranalysiswillcallspecial

attentiontothisgroup.

Table 1. Age o All 1MC Attendees

Count Percent

17 or youngeryounger 2 3%

1824 5 6%

2534 29 37%

3544 28 35%

4554 9 11%

5564 6 8%

Total 79 100%

Table1presentstheagedistributionofallsurvey

respondents.Thedistributionforfoundersandco-foundersonly

isnearlyidentical(notshown).However,ifweconsiderjust

founders and co-founders, this distribution skews slightly younger

thanwhatotherresearchaboutentrepreneurshasfound,with

agreaterportionofthetwenty-vetothirty-fouragegroup

represented,andlessamongforty-veandoldergroups.4 This

couldreectthesectoralmixofcompaniesrepresentedat1MC,

as well as the network effects that we will discuss in more detail

later(i.e.,thattwenty-ve-tothirty-four-year-oldsprimarilyrefer

othertwenty-ve-tothirty-four-year-oldstotheprogram,soa

programthatisjustbeginningismorelikelytoreectthosewho

happenedtoattendatthestart).

Table 2. Race

Count Percent

Asian 1 1%

Caucasian/White 76 96%

Other 2 3%

Total 79 100%

1.TheclosestdatacollectioneffortisthePanelStudyofEntrepreneurialDynamics(PSED),whichcapturespeoplewiththeintenttostartabusinesssoon(thosewhoareinterestedandtakingstepstostart,buthavenotyetformallystarted,abusiness).However,thePSEDdoesnotaddressnetworkingactivitiesatthesamelevelasthisreport.

2.Anoteonsurveydistribution:sincethispopulationispredisposedtouselaptopsandmobiledevices,wecreatedthesurveytobeavailableonbothlaptopsandmobiledevices,andpostedaQRcodeandURLduring1MC.Attherstevent,the1MCorganizerssetveminutesasideatthestarttoannouncethesurveyandgiveattendeestheopportunitytotakeitatthattime.Naturally,thewillingnesstoparticipateishighwhenparticipantsareonsite.Moreover,postcardswithaQRcodeandURLforthesurveyalsoweredistributedforindividualstotakehomeintheeventtheywishedtotakethesurveylater.Anannouncementwasmadeandanothersetofpostcardsdistributedatthesecondeventafewweekslaterremindingattendeesaboutthesurvey(thoughnotimewassetasidethissecondtime).

3.Attendanceatthetwo1MCeventswasestimatedat111individualsatthersteventand165atthesecond.Manyindividualsattendedbothevents,whichcomplicatesourresponseratecalculations.Mostresponses(sixty)wererecordedthedayofthersteventwith17percent(tenrespondents)reportingtoberst-time1MCattendees.Thedayofthesecondevent,nineteenadditionalresponseswererecorded,withtenreportingitastheirrsttimeattending.Ourestimatedresponseratethusdependsonwhatproportionofrst-timeattendeeswereatthesecondevent.Fromtherstday,weknowthat17percentwererst-timeattendees.Anecdotally,theeventorganizersreportthataround2025percentofattendeeseachweekcontinuetoberst-timeattendees.Itthusseemsreasonabletoassumethatrst-timeattendeescompriseanywherefrom17to25percentofthe1MCaudienceeachweek.Ifweassumeattendeesareallequallylikelytorespondtothesurveyregardlessoftheirattendancehistory,aback-of-the-envelopecalculationndsatotaleligiblepoolof111,plusanothertwenty-eight(17percentof165)toforty-one(25percentof165)individuals.Thismeanstherawresponseratelikelyvariedbetween57percentand52percent.However,KauffmanFoundationemployeeswereexcludedfromtakingthesurvey,sothetotaleligibleresponsesfromeacheventwereslightlylessthantotalattendance(fewerthanadozenEMKFemployeestypicallyattend),meaningthe57percentto52percentcalculationislikelyunderstatingthetrueresponserate.Buttoerronthesideofcaution,wesimplyestimateabove50percent.

4.See,forexample,Fairlie2012,ReynoldsandCurtain2008,Ballouetal.2008,andWadhwaetal.2008.



9/207

Table 3. Educational Attainment5

Count Percent

High school graduate* 8 10%

Technical, trade, orvocational degree

1 1%

Associates degree 2 3%

Bachelors degree 45 57%

Masters degree 20 25%

Doctoral degree 3 4%

Total 79 100%

*diplomaorequivalenttodiploma

Table 4. Gender

Count Percent

Female 13 16%

Male 66 84%

Total 79 100%

Tables2,3,and4presentadditionaldemographicinformation.

1MCattendeesarealmostallwhiteandhaveahighlevelofformal

education.Theyalsoarepredominantlymale(84percent).This

seemssomewhatcomparabletodataforotherentrepreneurial

activities.Asareference,theKauffmanFoundationsStartup

Weekendreportsthataround17percentto20percentofits

attendeesarefemale,whiletherearefewerparticipantsagetwenty-fouroryoungerandmoreparticipantsagesfty-veandolderfor

StartupWeekend.6

Foundersandco-founderswereaskedtoprovidethezipcode

wheretheirbusinesswaslocated.Figure3plotsthedistribution

ofbusinessesaroundtheKansasCitymetropolitanarea.Reddots

representbusinesses;thelargerthedot,themorebusinesseslocated

inthatzipcode.Theblacksquaremarksthe1MCeventlocation.The

majorityofbusinessesarelocatedinKansasCity,Missouri.Many

entrepreneursareincurringsignicanttravelcoststoattend1MC.

Forexample,BlueSprings,Belton,andParkville,Missouri,allhave

companiesrepresentedandallareatleastfteenmilesawayfromthe

eventlocation(traveltimeofatleasttwenty-vetothirtyminutes).

TheInc.500isalistoffast-growingprivatermspublished

everyyearsince1982byInc. magazine. The distribution of

companiesthatattend1MCstandsinstarkcontrasttothelocation

ofInc.500rmsovertheyears.Figure4showstheclusteringof

Inc.500rmsduringthe2000s.Inc.500rmstendtoclusterin

Fig. 3. 1MC Founder and Co-ounderBusiness Location

Fig. 4. Location o Inc. 500 Firms inthe 2000s

Source:1MCSurvey

Source:AuthorstabulationfromInc.500data


5.Educationalattainmentrepresentsthehighestlevelofdegreeobtained.

6.FranckNouyrigat,pers.comm.,May24,2012;StevenChau,pers.comm.,April30,2012.


10/208

thesuburbsofJohnsonCounty,Kansas.Thisisincontrastwith

1MC-attendingbusinesses,whicharelocatedpredominantlyin

KansasCity,Missouri(KCMO).Oneofthepossiblereasonsisthat

more1MC-attendingbusinessesdrawfromKCMOduetothe

proximityofthe1MCeventlocation.Notably,KansasCity,Kansas,

isnotrepresentedmuchamong1MC-attendingbusinessesor

Inc.500rms.Anotherpossibilityisthatentrepreneursdostart

theirbusinessesinKansasCity,Missouri,butoverthecourseofbusinessdevelopmenttheyrelocatetomoresuburbanlocations,

likeJohnsonCounty.

Table 5. Kansas City MSA Native

Count Percent

No 34 43%

Yes 45 57%

Total 79 100%

Figure5showswithredcirclesthehometownof1MC

attendees.Thelargertheredcircle,themore1MCattendees

fromthatarea(theblacksquareagainreferstothe1MCevent

locationinKansasCity,Missouri).Weseefromthechartaswell

asTable5thatmostoftheattendeesarefromtheKansasCity

areaoriginally.Thesamepercentagesaretruewhenconsidering

foundersandco-foundersofcompaniesonly(notshown).

However,wealsoseethatmanycomefromoutsideKansas

City,drawingrstfromtheKansasandMissouriregionsand

thenfurtherfromscatteredcitiesacrosstheUnitedStates.That

istosay,therearefairamountsof1MCattendeesthathave

migratedtoKansasCity,andmanyofthemendedupfounding

or co-founding a business.

Table 6. Migration7

Patterns Type Count Percent

From KC,attended localuniv.

Never let 28 35%

From KC,outside univ.,came back

Retained 10 13%

From outside,attended localuniv., stayed

Attracted/Retained

12 15%

From outside,attended outsideuniv., now in KC

Attracted 15 19%

Unknown Unknown 14 18%

Total 79 100%

7.TheresultsofTables5and6arenotdirectlycomparablebecausenotallrespondentsansweredbothquestions.

Figure 5. Hometown and University o 1MC Attendees

Source:1MCSurvey

1MCattendeehometown

1MCundergraduateuniversity

1MCeventlocation



11/209

Figure5alsousesabluetriangletodenotewhere1MC

attendeesobtainedtheirundergraduatedegree(ifapplicable).

Thisdemonstratesfurthergeographicspread.LookingatTable6,

weseethatmanyattendeesareKansasCitynativeswhoeither

attended a local university and stayed, or attended outside the

regionandcameback.However,thereisstillafairamountof

attractionandretentioneitherfrompeoplepurelymovingto

KansasCity,orfromthosewhoattendedauniversityintheregion

andendedupstayinginKansasCity.8

Table 7. Identity

Count Percent

Designer/Creative 10 13%

Developer/Engineer 7 9%

Finance 5 6%

Management 26 33%

Marketing 10 13%

Other 21 27%

Total 79 100%

1MCattendeeswereaskedtoidentifythemselvesbasedon

theirprimarybackground.Table7showsthattheManagement

andOther9categoriesmakeupthemajorityofresponses.Ofthe

twoagegroupswithhighestrepresentation,theolderofthe

two(thirty-vetoforty-four),hasroughlydoubletheamountofManagementrepresentationthanthetwenty-vetothirty-four

group.TherearemorepeopleidentiedastheDesigner/Creative

andMarketinginthetwenty-vetothirty-fourgroup.

Table 8. Business Stage

Count Percent

In development 25 47%

Undergoing a majormodifcation (or pivot)

12 23%

Solid and/or well-developed 16 30%

Total 53 100%

Table 9. Financing Status

Count Percent

Already raised sufcient capital 14 26%

Seeking capital 13 25%

Have not started seeking capital 25 47%

(Skipped question) 1 2%

Total 53 100%

The majority of founders and co-founders indicated they were

stillundergoingchangestotheirbusinessmodel,with47percent

stilldevelopingand23percentmakingmajormodications(Table

8).Thisisinlinewithwhatweexpectfromaneventcenteredon

presentingideasandQ&Adevelopmentsessions.Themajority

alsowerenotactivelyinvolvedinfundraising,with26percent

completedand47percentnothavingattemptedany(Table9).

Table 10. Financing Sources10

CountPercent out

o 53

Savings 42 79%

Family 22 42%

Personal or business credit card 12 23%

Business acquaintances 7 13%

Personal or business bank loan 6 11%Angel investors 6 11%

Friends 4 8%

Venture capitalists 2 4%

Government grant 1 2%

Did not use any fnancing 6 11%

1MCattendeeswhoarefoundersorco-founderswere

askedtoidentifyanysourceofnancingtheyusedtonance

theircurrentcompany.Table10presentsnancingsources,andnancingpatternsaresimilaracrosseachbusinessmodel

developmentstage:Themajorityhavedrawnonpersonalsavings

andfamilymembers.Creditcardusagealsoisprevalent.

8.WearenotsamplingindividualswhohaveleftKansasCity.Therefore,wecantaccountforhowthisretainandattractionpatternholdsrelativetooutboundmigration.

9.ManyrespondentsintheOthercategoryidentiedthemselvesasentrepreneurs.

10.Thistableisderivedfromaquestioninwhichrespondentswereallowedtoselectmultipleanswers.Thecountrepresentsthenumberoftimesaresponseitemwasselected,andthepercentiscalculatedoutofthetotalnumberofrespondentswhoansweredthequestion.



12/2010

Table 11. Revenue by Full-Time Status

RevenueIntake Status

Full-Time Status No YesGrand

Total

100% or this company 9 30 39Have another job 10 4 14

Total 19 34 53

Founders and co-founders were asked whether their current

companywastakinginanyrevenueandwhethertheyworked

onthatcompanyfulltime.Table11showsthatthemajorityof

respondentswerecommittedfulltimetotheircompaniesand

generatingrevenue.Weinterpretthisasevidencethatboth

aspiringentrepreneursintheideaphaseandactiveentrepreneurs

areintegratedin1MC.

Table 12. Attendance Frequency

Count Percent

Almost every week 33 42%

About twice a month 19 24%

About once a month 7 9%

This is my frst time 20 25%

Total 79 100%

Attendeesmostlycomprisepeoplewhokeepcomingback

to1MCevents,asshowninTable12.Themajorityofrespondentspreviouslyhadattended1MC,with42percentreporting

attendingnearlyeveryweek.Table13showshowrespondents

rstheardabouttheeventandthemonthin2012whenthey

rstattended1MC.Nearlyhalfofrespondentsrstattended

1MCthreemonthsormorepriortothesurveyadministration.

Thisrepeatattendanceoveralongperiodisastrongsignalthat

attendees highly value the event. Additionally, word of mouth by

far(67percent)isthecatalystforbringinginnewattendees,even

as the event continues to mature.

Itispossiblethatsomerespondentsconsideredhearing

about1MCinthenewsorothersourcestobewordofmouth.

Tocontrolforinterpretationissuesaroundwordofmouth,

respondentswerepresentedwithawrite-inquestionaskingthem

tospecicallynametheindividualwhotoldthemabout1MC.

Ofthefty-threeword-of-mouthresponses,forty-venamed

apersonoranumberofpeople,andeightdidnotwriteinany

names.Fortheforty-vewhodid,wetabulatedthespreadof

names.Inonlyahandfulofinstancesweremultiplenameslisted

(four), and in all of these cases dual names were given, whichmeans that, in total, forty-seven names were given:

Namedonce:................................24

Namedtwice:.................................4

Namedthreetimes:........................2

Group/organizationwasnamed:.....2

Additionally,theeventsprimaryorganizer,NateOlson,was

named seven times.

Thewidevarietyofpeopleinvolvedinword-of-mouth

activities serves as another signal about the value of the eventandreinforcesndingsfromFigure1aboutthespreadofthis

developingentrepreneurialnetworkinKansasCity.

Table 13. Discovery by First 1MC Attendance

First Attend 1MC

Discovered 1MC Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NovGrand

Total

1 Million Cups website 1 1

Other entrepreneurshiporganization/groups

1 1 1 3 1 3 10

Other website 1 1

Twitter 1 2 1 2 6

Word o mouth 3 5 3 3 12 8 7 12 53

Other 1 1 2 4 8

Total 4 6 5 8 15 9 11 21 79



13/2011

Table 14. Other Program Attendance11

CountPercent

out o 79

Startup Weekend 22 28%

Red Nova Labs Venture Friday 21 27%

Think Big Partners (variousprograms)

20 25%

KCSourceLink Events 11 14%

BetaBlox Accelerator/IncubatorProgram

7 9%

Hackathon 7 9%

Kauman FastTrac 6 8%

Pipeline 6 8%

UMKC E-Scholars 5 6%

Helzberg EntrepreneurialMentoring Program 2 3%

Other 21 27%

1MCisnottheonlyprogramforentrepreneursinthe

KansasCityarea.1MCattendeeswerepresentedalistofother

entrepreneur-focusedprogramsandeventsandwereaskedto

selectallthattheyhadattended.Responsesarepresentedin

Table 14.12RedNovaLabs,StartupWeekend,andThinkBig

Partnersallarefrequentlyattendedotherprograms.13Notably,in

theOthercategory,KCNextwaswritteninmultipletimes.

Table 15. Program Attendance Distribution

Count Percent

Attended no other program (orskipped question)

25 32%

Attended one other program 18 23%

Attended two other programs 11 14%

Attended three other programs 13 16%

Attended our or more other

programs

12 15%

Table 16. Reason or Attending 1MC14

CountPercent out

o 79

To connect with otherentrepreneurs

69 87%

To have un 36 46%Just to check it out 36 46%

To generate or test newideas

19 24%

To fnd people or mycompany

12 15%

Other 17 22%

Intotal,therewere128instancesofotherprogram

attendance. Table 15 shows the distribution among all seventy-

ninerespondents.Themajorityofrespondentsreported

attendingoneornootherprograms.Nearlyone-thirdattendedmore than two. Attendees also were asked to select from a list

alltheirreasonsforattending1MC(Table16).Themajority

wastherefornetworkingtogetconnectedwithother

entrepreneurswhichbolstersourdepictionof1MCasanevent

thatusesbusinesspresentationsasacatalystfordiscussionand

networking.

ConsideringTables15and16together,itishardto

concludeanythingfromthesendingsyetaboutprograms

andnetworksinKansasCity.However,giventhatagood

numberof1MCparticipantshaveattendedeitherthreeother

programs(16percent)orfourormore(15percent),this

signalsthatsomeportionof1MCparticipantsareactiveinthe

localentrepreneurialcommunity,andthenetworksof1MC

participantsoverlapwitheventsandorganizationslikeStartup

Weekend,RedNovaLabs,ThinkBigPartners,andKCNext.


12.Accompanyingthispaperisaweb-basedinteractivenetworkmapshowingtheotherKansasCityprogramstowhich1MCattendeesalsoareconnected.

13.Wenotethatotherprogramsdonotoccuratthesameinterval(onceayearversusmultipletimesayear)andvarywidelyintheirstructure,soitisinappropriatetocompareoneversustheotherasmorepopular.Forexample,StartupWeekendisaneventheldopportunistically,whileRedNovaLabsVentureFridayoccursonceamonth,andUMKCE-Scholarsisanenrolledprogram.Additionally,wenotefordisclosurethattheKauffmanFoundationisdirectlyandindirectlyinvolvedinmanyoftheseprograms,andnanciallysupportsmanyofthem.However,KauffmanFoundationinvolvementwasnotthebasisforthelist,whichwasgeneratedfromgroupdiscussionamongthesurveydesignteammembers.




14/2012

Discussion andImplications

Wehaveobservedastellardemandforanentrepreneurialcommunitylike1MCinKansasCity,giventheextremelyrapid

growthinnumberofparticipantsandtheirfrequentattendance

(almosteveryweek).Sinceconnectingwithotherentrepreneurs

wastheleadingreasoncitedforattending1MC,itiseasytosee

thatentrepreneurssimplywanttohangout.Theofcialtimefor

1MCisfrom910a.m.onWednesdays,butpeoplegatherand

chat thirty minutes before the event, and stay for another hour

afterward.

Thisndingofentrepreneurspenchantforbeingconnected

withotherentrepreneursisconsistentwithourownexperience

ofentrepreneurtrainingprogramsatKauffmanLabs(201011),

and,forexample,thePipelineProgram,whichprovidestraining

toentrepreneursforscalingpotentialhigh-growthstartupsto

million-dollarcompanies.Bottomline:Entrepreneursvaluethe

interactionwithpeerentrepreneurs.Thisdesireforcamaraderie

isintuitive;weknowentrepreneursfeellonely(Kauffman

Foundation2013).Theyfaceanumberofproblemsassole

decisionmakers,anditappearsthat1MCprovidesemotional

support.

Inadditiontothispsychologicalaspect,wendthat1MC

functionsasaspaceoflearningforentrepreneurs.Entrepreneurshavetondsolutionsfortheirproblemswithlimitedtimeand

knowledge.Theyneedanswersfromsomewhere,andtheirpeer

entrepreneurswhoareexperiencingsimilarproblemsareperhaps

thebestsourceforndingsolutions.Weneedtofurtherexplore

thislearningaspectwhattheylearn,howtheylearn,under

what circumstances, etc.

Theexperienceof1MCimpliesthat,ifwereplicate1MC

inothercities,weshouldtargetplaceswithhighdemandand

lowsupply,i.e.,placeswhereearly-stageentrepreneurshave

notfoundortakenpartinanentrepreneurialcommunity.Jim

Brasunas,executivedirectorofITEN(InformationTechnology

EntrepreneurNetwork),describedthesituationinSt.Louis:

WhenItalkedtoentrepreneurs,theytypicallysaidIdothis[my

business]aloneandIdontknowotherentrepreneursorinvestors

intown.SoIgotoSiliconValleytolookforinvestors.(Interview,

4/27/2012).Weencourageentrepreneursandsupportersto

contacttheKauffmanFoundationtolaunchanew1MCifthey

feelthisdescriptiontstheirregionandtheywanttostartanew

entrepreneurialcommunity.

Asnoted,itisfairtosaythat,whileavarietyofcompanies

presentat1MC,thepreponderanceseemstobe,anecdotallyat

least,mobileandInternetbusinesses.Apopularperceptionisthat

thesearelessrealcompaniesthan,e.g.,astartupthatmakes

aphysicalproductbecausethereareminimalornocapitalcosts.

Wefoundthatthemajorityof1MCcompanieshavefounders

who not only are taking in revenue, but also work full time for

theirstartup.Whiletheremaybenuancestothesereported

activities(e.g.,thisdoesnotspeaktoprotabilityandtheability

tosustainfull-timeemploymentatthestartup),thefactremains

that,atleastinthecaseof1MCcompanies,thereisrealrevenue

atstakeandrealprofessionalcommitmentfromthefoundersand

co-founderstotheirstartups.Thismightassuagefearsofpotential

organizersinothercitiesabouttheirabilitiestoattractpresenters

that are beyond the idea stage.

ResearchersattheSantaFeInstitutehavedemonstrated

thatthereissuchathingastheepidemiologyofideasideasspreadlikeviruses.IntheageofYouTube,ithasbecome

commontospeakofsomethinggoingviral.Inthecontextofan

entrepreneurialcommunity,thisinitial1MCsurveydemonstrates

thatthenotionofviralityisquiteappropriate.Thedigitalage

doesnotmeanthatpeoplestartedtocometo1MCbecauseof

itswebsite,Facebookpage,ortweets.Peopleheardaboutand

decidedtoparticipatein1MCthroughotherpeople.Moreover,it

wasnotasmallnumberofkeypeoplewhobecamethenodeof

networkandspreadtheword,butrather,thecircleofnetwork

greworganicallythroughanumberofpeople.Theprimary

organizerof1MCwasmentionedseventimesasaspecicsourceforwordofmouth;however,thesesevenresponsesconstituteda

smallfractionofoursample,andtherestoftheparticipantsheard

about1MCfromanumberofdifferentindividuals.Thesendings

suggest that we should not rely solely on digital media

toestablishanddevelopanentrepreneurialnetwork.

Atthesametime,itcouldbeadifferentstoryoncepeople

havedecidedtoattend:Digitalmediacouldplayamoreimportant

communicationsrole.Thus,wedonotimplythatthedigitalmedia

isunimportantforanentrepreneurialnetwork.Ourpointhere

issimplythatwordofmouthplaysadominantroleattheearlystageofcreatinganddevelopingastartupcommunity.Inthis

project,wedidnotaskhowcontinuingparticipantsusedigital

media to communicate. It will be a subject of future research.

Wecannotemphasizeenoughthatoneofthebiggest

advantagesof1MCisitslowcost.Asidefromthetimedevoted

by the three Kauffman associates and a small budget for coffee

andotherdrinks,1MCprogramexpensesarenexttonothing.

AfteritsinitiallaunchbyKauffmanassociates,theprogramnow



15/2013

isruncompletelybyvolunteerentrepreneurs,soitcouldbethe

casethatprogramsinothercitieswillhaveevensmallerstartup

costs.However,itisimportanttohaveafacilitylargeenoughto

holdparticipants.Whileinitialmeetingsmaytakeplaceinsmall

locationslikecoffeeshops,ifthesamegrowthpatternoccurs

inothercitiesasinKansasCity,eventorganizersmayndthat

theyquicklyoutgrowtheirspace.Thiswasnotanissuefor1MC

inKansasCitybecausetheycouldusethelargecommunalspace

atKauffmanLabsforfree.Withthenumberofparticipantscloser

to200asofJanuary2013,1MCisdiscussingrelocatingtoan

evenlargerspaceattheKauffman

FoundationConferenceCenternext

door,whichstillisfreeforparticipants.

Citygovernmentsorentrepreneurship-

supportingorganizationscanhelp

withthislogisticalissuebyproviding

alargespaceatlowornocost.Anddontforgetgoodcoffeefor

entrepreneurs.

Importantly,thisisnotabout

networking, which is a current fashion

amongmanyentrepreneurship

programs.Havingentrepreneursdiscusstheirstoryandbusiness

andtheninteractwithpeersisacatalyticeducationalactivity.

This structured activity is critical for building the network of

entrepreneurs,andallowsparticipantstosilentlypartake,thus

loweringthebarrierstoattending(farlesspressure).Itseems

thepitchingandQ&Astructureworkedwellforcommunitybuildingpurposesratherthaneventsthatarestructured,for

example,aroundkeynotespeechesbecausethepitchesarefrom

apeergroupratherthanaspeakerwithperceivedhigherstatus.

Preparingtopresentandrespondtoquestionsandassimilate

feedbackturnsouttobeagoodexercisefortheentrepreneurs.

Theinitiationof1MCpresentsanalternativemodeltothe

leadershiproleinentrepreneurialcommunities.Reectingon

hislengthyexperienceinBoulder,Colorado,BradFeld(2012)

advocatedthecreationofanentrepreneurialcommunityby

entrepreneursthemselves.Hespecicallystatedthatgovernmentofcials,universityprofessors,andpeopleatsupportorganizations

arefeeders,notleaders,oftheentrepreneurialcommunity,

andthatfeedersshouldnotleadentrepreneurialcommunity.

Technicallyspeaking,thethreeassociatesattheKauffman

Foundationarenotentrepreneurs.Itdoesnotseemthatthis

leader versus feeder distinction is a strict rule for creating and

developinganentrepreneurialcommunity.However,withnoself-

promotionintended,theKauffmanFoundationisnotanordinary

organizationintherealmofentrepreneurship.TheFoundation

primarilyisdedicatedtothepromotionofentrepreneurship,

andourjobistosupportandengagewithentrepreneurs.In

thatsense,thethreekeyassociateswhostarted1MCwere

substantiallyclosertobeingentrepreneursthangovernment

ofcials,professors,orotherso-calledfeeders.Unfortunately,

noteverycityenjoysthebenetsofKauffmansinfrastructure

(suchasmeetingspace)andnancialandhumanresources.The

experienceinKansasCityopensadoorthatnon-entrepreneurs

maycontributetothecreationofentrepreneurialcommunities.

However,wecautionthatthosenon-entrepreneurleadersneed

tobededicatedtopromoting

entrepreneurshipandhavea

thorough and studied understanding

ofentrepreneurs.Perhapsa

critical distinction is that during

the event itself, aside from brief

announcements and introductions,all of the talking should be done by

presentersandthe1MCaudience;

thatis,theactualentrepreneurial

communityprovidesthecontent

and substance of the event. This

playsintoalargerdevelopmentin1MC:as1MCasanetwork

hastakenoff,itsleadershipshiftedtothreeentrepreneursinlate

2012. Anecdotally, energy and enthusiasm have not been lost in

this transition, and attendance has continued to climb. This will be

an area of focus in the next survey.

Relatedly,wewouldliketodiscusstheroleofmultipleorganizers.Sincewehavenotresearchedothercomparable

networks,wedonothaveadeniteconclusiontoofferjustyet.

However,webelievethattheinvolvementandpresenceofthe

threeorganizerswasimportantintheformationof1MCforat

leastthreereasons.First,threepeople,ingeneral,canrecruitmore

participantsthanoneortwopeople.Whileanetworkhastostart

at a small scale, it may not make sense to start with only three or

fourparticipants.Moreover,ifasinglepersonrecruits,chancesare

thattheparticipantsmayalreadyknoweachother.Incontrast,if

eachorganizerrecruitsthreeorfourpeople,andiftherearethree

organizers,thereeasilywillbemorethantenparticipants.Thishappenedfor1MCattheverybeginning.ThesociologistRonald

Burthasdevelopedtheconceptofastructuralholeofnetwork,

whichisapplicablehere(1982,1992,2002).Everyindividual

hasgapsinknowledge.Whenpeoplemeetwiththesamecircle

ofpeoplerepeatedly,itdoesnotllinholesofinformation.New

peoplearelikelytoprovidedifferentkindsofinformationandll

in the holes with different kinds of functions. Thus, the value of a

networkincreasesifparticipantsgettoknownewpeople.

Entrepreneurs have to fnd solutions

or their problems with limited time

and knowledge. They need answers

rom somewhere, and their peer

entrepreneurs who are experiencingsimilar problems are perhaps the best

source or fnding solutions.



16/2014

Second,fromalogisticalstandpoint,organizingmightbea

burdenforonepersonduringtheinitialphaseofsettingup1MC.

Whilethecostofaneventlike1MCisminimal,thelogisticalwork

tocreateandruntheeventissubstantial:recruitingparticipants;

decidingwhopresentswhen;reservingafacilityandpayingfees;

startingandfacilitatingtheeventeveryweek;organizingthe

eventwebsite;beingavailabletootherparticipants;etc.Itturned

out that the three organizers at the Kauffman Foundation could

devotesignicanttimeonthisproject,butthatmaynotbethe

caseifotherregionstrytoreplicatethistypeofnetwork.Itcould

beanevenmoresubstantialburdenifentrepreneursthemselves

try to run this network, as they are more than busy with their

ownstartupcompanies.Multipleorganizerscouldrotateordivide

tasks to reduce the burden on key organizers. Indeed, reliance on

asinglepersoncouldpreventtheviralgrowthofanetwork.Ithas

become increasingly clear that teams, rather than solo founders,

arecriticaltoentrepreneurialsuccess,andwesuggestateam

approachtolaunching1MCelsewhere.

Atthetimeofthisinitialsurvey,1MCattendeeswerehighly

homogeneousintermsofrace.However,theydodifferintermsof

theirage,educationalattainment,andprofessionalbackgrounds.

The gender skew toward males was heavy, but not altogether

differentfromprolesofotherentrepreneurs.Sincethe

1MCnetworkappearstohavebeenprimarilybuiltbyword

of mouth, we believe the race and gender homogeneity

ismorereectiveofexistingsocialgroups(whitemales

likelyarenetworkedwithotherwhitemales).Thispattern

echoestheexperienceinSiliconValley.Saxenianandher

colleaguesdemonstratedthatChineseformedChineseethnic

professionalassociations,andsodidIndians.Itmaybea

reasonablepropositiontosuggestthatthenetworkdevelops

moreeasilywithsomeformofethnichomogeneity.However,

thismayapplyonlyfortheveryearlystageofnetwork

formation and become different as the network matures.

Indeed,recentexperiencesuggeststhatasithas

growninattendance,sohasthediversityof1MC.Ournext

tasksforresearchwillbetotracktheevolutionof1MCin

KansasCityandothercities,andtoplaceitinrelationto

otherentrepreneurshipprograms.Wesuspect,andhopetoexamine,thatjustasthe1MCnetworkhasgrownthrough

wordofmouth,sotoohaveotherassociatedprograms

aroundthemetropolitanarea,witheven1MCspawninga

raftofadditionalprograms.



17/2015

ReerencesBallou,Janice,TomBarton,DavidDesRoches,FrankPotter,E.J.Reedy,AliciaRobb,ScottA.Shane,and

ZhanyunZhao.2008.TheKauffmanFirmSurvey:ResultsfromtheBaselineandFirstFollow-

UpSurveys.KansasCity,MO:EwingMarionKauffmanFoundation.http://www.kauffman.org/

uploadedFiles/kfs_08.pdf.

Burt,RonaldS.1982.Toward a Structural Theory of Action: network models of social structure,

perception, and action.NewYork:AcademicPress.

.2005.StructuralHoles.inThe New Economic Society,editedbyFrankDobbin.325348.

Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.OriginallypublishedinStructural Holes: The Social Structure

of Competition.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1992.

.2002.TheSocialCapitalofStructuralHoles.inTheNewEconomicSociology:Developments

inanEmergingField,editedbyMauroF.Guilln,RandallCollins,PaulaEnglandandMarshall

Meyer,14892.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.

EwingMarionKauffmanFoundation.2013.Itslonelyoutthere.http://bcove.me/njjhszmj.Accessed

January17,2013.

Fairlie,RobertW.2012.KauffmanIndexofEntrepreneurialActivity,19962011.KansasCity,MO:

EwingMarionKauffmanFoundation.http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/KIEA_2012_report.

pdf.

Feld,Bradley.2012.Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city.Hoboken,

NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Florida,RichardL.2004.The Rise of the Creative Class.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Helper,Susan,JohnPaulMacDufe,andCharlesF.Sabel.2000.PragmaticCollaborations:Advancing

KnowledgeWhileControllingOpportunism.Industrial and Corporate Change 9(3):44389.

Klepper,Steven.2010.TheOriginandGrowthofIndustryClusters:TheMakingofSiliconValleyand

Detroit.Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):1532.

Kenney, Martin. 2000. Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region.Palo

Alto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Lecuyer,Christophe.2006.Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the growth of high tech,19301970.

Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Lee,Chong-Moon,WilliamMiller,HenryRowen,andMargueriteHancock.2000. The Silicon Valley Edge:

A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Lyons,ThomasS.,TheodoreR.Alter,DavidB.Audretsch,andDarlineAugustine.2012.Entrepreneurship

andcommunity:Thenextfrontierofentrepreneurshipinquiry.Entrepreneurship Research Journal 2

(1):124.



18/2016

Martinez,MarthaA.,YangTiantian,andHowardE.Aldrich.2011.Entrepreneurshipasanevolutionaryprocess:Research

progressandchallenges.Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1 (1).

Nanda,RamanaandJesperB.Srensen.2010.WorkplacePeersandEntrepreneurship.Management Science 56

(7):111626.

Reynolds,PaulD.andRichardT.Curtin.2008.BusinessCreationintheUnitedStates:PanelStudyofEntrepreneurialDynamics II Initial Assessment. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 4(3):155307.

Sabel,CharlesF.1993.StudiedTrust:BuildingNewFormsofCooperationinaVolatileEconomy.inExplorations in

Economic Sociology,editedbyRichardSwedberg,10444.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.

Saxenian,AnnaLee.1994.Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128.Cambridge,MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.

.1999.Silicon Valleys new immigrant entrepreneurs.SanFrancisco:PublicPolicyInstituteofCalifornia.

Saxenian,AnnaLee,YasuyukiMotoyama,andXiaohongQuan.2002.Local and global networks of immigrant professionalsin Silicon Valley.SanFrancisco,CA:PublicPolicyInstituteofCalifornia.

Sorenson,OlavandTobyE.Stuart.2004.SocialNetworksandEntrepreneurship.inHandbook of Entrepreneurship

Research: Disciplinary Perspectives,editedbyOlavSorenson,RajshreeAgarwalandSharonAlverez,23352.NewYork:

SpringerScience+BusinessMedia.

Stuart,TobyE.,andOlavSorenson.2007.StrategicNetworksandEntrepreneurialVentures.Strategic Entrepreneurship

Journal 1(3):21127.

Stuart,TobyE.,andWaverlyW.Ding.2006.WhenDoScientistsBecomeEntrepreneurs?TheSocialStructuralAntecedents

ofCommercialActivityintheAcademicLifeSciences.AmericanJournalofSociology112(1):97144.

Storper,Michael,andAnthonyVenables.2004.Buzz:Face-To-FaceContactandtheUrbanEconomy.Journal of Economic

Geography 4(4):25170.

Wadhwa,Vivek,RichardFreeman,andBenRissing.2008.EducationandTechEntrepreneurship.KansasCity,MO:Ewing

MarionKauffmanFoundation.http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedles/Education_Tech_Ent_061108.pdf.



19/20


20/20

energizing an ecosystem: brewing 1 million cups

Documents